HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

The All Purpose Lu Thread (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 01:39 PM
  #851
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
Any input on what you believe a potential return is?
It's a irrelevant discussion when people can't even agree on a common ground to make those claims.

I'm hearing an awful lot of "you're being speculative, presenting zeros facts", yet I'm seeing not one poster using any facts to dispute what I'm saying.

At the very least, point #2 and #3 could be disputed with some facts as they are based on factual evidence.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:40 PM
  #852
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Moving Ballard will likely cost Vancouver assets. Just like McCabe in Toronto, especially if it is done in short order to get under a cap.

AND it still won't address the issue with Lu and Schneider which is why it's not an acceptable solution. It's a band aid that will cost something.
So our goalies have negative value?

And what is this issue?

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:41 PM
  #853
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It's a irrelevant discussion when people can't even agree on a common ground to make those claims.

I'm hearing an awful lot of "you're being speculative, presenting zeros facts", yet I'm seeing not one poster using any facts to dispute what I'm saying.

At the very least, point #2 and #3 could be disputed with some facts as they are based on factual evidence.
All you've done is form your own opinions , label them by #, and then call them fact.

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:42 PM
  #854
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kack zassian View Post
The first part is your opinion... I doubt many people will agree. Cents on the dollar is a 3rd/4th round pick in all likelihood.
If true, can you provide SOMETHING to prove the opposite? I gave an example and you have not?

Whose going to take a large cap dump in short order and give up a pick? Can you provide an example?

If not then my point is more valid then your own.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:45 PM
  #855
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Moving Ballard will likely cost Vancouver assets. Just like McCabe in Toronto, especially if it is done in short order to get under a cap.

AND it still won't address the issue with Lu and Schneider which is why it's not an acceptable solution. It's a band aid that will cost something.
Putting Ballard on waivers if nobody wants him costs nothing. FACT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It's really not. Capgeek's shows Lu's NTC as having 5 possible destinations of his choosing. That's a fact! He is within his right to use that clause.

Are you going to dispute that and tell me I present zero facts? Seriously?
That is the clause of the contract. That is a fact. Finally got a real fact out of you.

Gillis will negotiate with teams. If those teams present an offer he deems acceptable, he'll present it to Luongo, not the other way around.

He can select 5 teams, but if those 5 teams don't want him and the other side of the coin is starting 30% of his teams games do you think Luongo would open up his teams?

Basically, he is either stuck in a position where his starting role is under serious question or he can be traded to a team that wants him (as evidenced by offering a serious package that improves Vancouver - because who makes trades trying to get worse?) and re-claim his role as unquestioned starter.


You've yet to answer anyone on what 'your value' is for a Luongo trade. Don't use players names or teams, what is the value Roberto Luongo?

We don't need to agree with your 'facts' for you to state an opinion - lets see it bud.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:46 PM
  #856
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectProphet View Post
All you've done is form your own opinions , label them by #, and then call them fact.
Dispute Lu's 5 team NTC.

Dispute Vancouver's cap going forward, even under 70M as it stands today.

Those are facts. Dispute them.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:47 PM
  #857
BlueBaron
Registered User
 
BlueBaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamhuisHip View Post
I think you named the player yourself. How long did CBJ hold onto Nash before they traded him?
Half a season because his trade request came so close to the deadline. So our answer is the only player to request a trade and not get one is Nash...who got one....

BlueBaron is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:50 PM
  #858
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
If true, can you provide SOMETHING to prove the opposite? I gave an example and you have not?

Whose going to take a large cap dump in short order and give up a pick? Can you provide an example?

If not then my point is more valid then your own.
There's already a tread started by an Ottawa fan saying if the season starts in short order and Gonch doesn't come back, along with Cowen out with injury the Sens would like to acquire a Dman with Top 4 potential but not a prospect. More of a player pushed down due to depth.
Sounds like Keith Ballard to me.

So again please keep telling Canucks fans how we are so screwed. Please I'm enjoying watching people pick you a part and you claim to have facts when your present opinions.

I also enjoy this whole thing about a distraction having two great goalies. You know those guys who have been nothing but professional and enjoy working together. I don't think anyone has ever seen this open and casual side of Luongo before, and I believe it's because he no longer has to worry about being the best of all the goalies just to make his team win. He has a solid partner back there and a good team in front of him. Luongo has done nothing to ever give any worry about the two cohabiting the net in Vancouver

mstad101 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:51 PM
  #859
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Putting Ballard on waivers if nobody wants him costs nothing. FACT.


That is the clause of the contract. That is a fact. Finally got a real fact out of you.

Gillis will negotiate with teams. If those teams present an offer he deems acceptable, he'll present it to Luongo, not the other way around.

He can select 5 teams, but if those 5 teams don't want him and the other side of the coin is starting 30% of his teams games do you think Luongo would open up his teams?

Basically, he is either stuck in a position where his starting role is under serious question or he can be traded to a team that wants him (as evidenced by offering a serious package that improves Vancouver - because who makes trades trying to get worse?) and re-claim his role as unquestioned starter.


You've yet to answer anyone on what 'your value' is for a Luongo trade. Don't use players names or teams, what is the value Roberto Luongo?
I've already explained both sides of the argument you are making.

Putting Ballard on waivers doesn't fully solve the problem.

A) His cap hit would not cover the differences (under my calculations which I have shown, if you have some please show them).

B) If no one claims him then he will go to the minors. Might be a suitable solution for 4.2m but it is also speculated by reputable sources that this move will still count against the cap.

So, it's not a complete solution, but I take it as part of a potential solution.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:54 PM
  #860
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
There's already a tread started by an Ottawa fan saying if the season starts in short order and Gonch doesn't come back, along with Cowen out with injury the Sens would like to acquire a Dman with Top 4 potential but not a prospect. More of a player pushed down due to depth.
Sounds like Keith Ballard to me.
Just use some REAL sources. I've used cap geek, Vancouver newspaper, mathematical calculation of the cap, and prior NHL trades to validate my opinion.

It's all I ask.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:54 PM
  #861
HamhuisHip
LeggsOverMyHamhuis
 
HamhuisHip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It's really not. READ THE WHOLE POST. Do some research yourself on the cap and future CBA negotiations and use a little common sense when looking at his potential to be moved. I never stated that it will be 60M either but is is possible, HOWEVER, my point is valid under a 70M dollar cap anyway.

Simple as.
No it is not. As others have pointed out other moves could be made. "Simple as" indeed.

How about a response on claiming Luo has demanded a trade...

HamhuisHip is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:56 PM
  #862
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Just to dispel some myths going on in this thread(s).

Why Mike Gillis HAS TO trade Roberto Luongo:
(this off-season or by latest trade deadline)

#1. He has asked to moved. Plain and simple. While he has politely given Gillis time and an opportunity to trade him by not forcing his hand and “demanding a trade”, it is a given the future is not long for Luongo and the Canucks. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Can...588/story.html

#2. Mike Gillis can keep both Luongo and Schneider? According to CapGeek, Roberto Luongo has a NTC. He can supply a list of 5 teams he is willing to go to, HOWEVER, essentially he can have his say where he wants to go. It seems for now he’s willing to listen to a couple of interested teams, but he ultimately supplies a list of 5 teams of his choosing, putting him in control. For example; he can give 5 teams with realistically only 1 or 2 teams in need of his services or being capable of acquiring him. It’s a short list that puts Luongo in control. He must agree to where he goes. If things boil over between Gillis and Luongo (due to no trade or insufficient return), Luongo can simply tell the media or leak to the media that he “officially demands to be traded!” changing the dynamics and trade market significantly. Again, it’s only likely if Gillis refuses to trade Luongo but it’s a real possibility if things go sour. Look at Dany Heatley, Eric Lindros, Rick Nash, etc.. Refer to point #1. Luongo has far much more control than people suggest.
http://www.capgeek.com/canucks/
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
[continued]

#3. New CBA, future cap ceiling, and the Canuck’s cap management going forward. Posted by a different user but looking at the math, especially if the cap drops in one year to 60M, Vancouver will need to move salary in order to fill out their roster to continue competing for the cup. Luongo is the only real asset that they could use to clear cap space AND still get value for. Other players will likely need to be a cap dump + some value going to another team to absorb that cap hit. The new CBA will determine a lot but there is a possibility that cap dumps in the minors will still count against the cap - still to be determined. Either way it’s a 5-6 million dollar mistake on management or assets out the door to retain the cap to keep Luongo, still keeping in mind point #1 and #2. - nonsensical. It seems the strongest path is to move Luongo with everything considered and take some sort of value rather than the other options.
#1 - link? He hasn't 'asked' for a thing. Even a strong number of non-Canuck fans can admit that. It may have been implied, but that is speculation.

#2 - Is #2 a fact? Mike Gillis could very well keep both, not one of us on this forum know what a new CBA looks like moving forward, thus your entire point here is speculatory. Luongo has the clause, but it's more of a veto power than a "you have to trade me here power".

#3 - Again anything describing the next CBA is speculation.

Don't bother responding Marty, and I won't respond to yours....i've been snagged by rookie user's before, never again.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:59 PM
  #863
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamhuisHip View Post
No it is not. As others have pointed out other moves could be made. "Simple as" indeed.

How about a response on claiming Luo has demanded a trade...
Show me some numbers.

And I never said Lu demanded a trade.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:00 PM
  #864
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,696
vCash: 1785
We should lay off the rookie user, he might be confused between what speculation and fact means.

Fact #1: Mike Gillis does not have to trade Luongo.

Every other point he makes is basically speculation he labelled as fact.

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:02 PM
  #865
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,696
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
And I never said Lu demanded a trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Why Mike Gillis HAS TO trade Roberto Luongo

#1. He has asked to moved. Plain and simple.
Really?

kthsn is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:05 PM
  #866
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 358
I'll take a stab at it...

Just to dispel some myths going on in this thread(s).

Why Brian Burke HAS TO trade for Roberto Luongo: (this off-season or by latest trade deadline)

#1. The "five-year-plan" is on the brink of failure. Burke's job depends on winning now. Plain and simple.
#2. Burke can't roll with mediocre goaltending again: the team's biggest weakness. Reimer hasn't, and won't be getting it done, and Scrivens is busy letting in goals from centre, and setting a record for 2 goals allowed in 3 seconds. Luongo is Canuck property, and the only legit starter available that could guarantee legit goaltending for the next 1/2 decade+ <snip> Refer to point #1. Gillis has far much more control than people suggest.
#3. New CBA, future cap ceiling, won't be a problem for the Canuck’s cap management going forward, as they can deal players like Raymond, Ballard, Malhotra, or just let them walk... retaining both goalies, and still icing a formidable team. T.O. may have cap space in the future, but who's going to be available? I'll tell you who - guys like Raymond, Ballard, Malhotra... teams will resign their best assets (duh) On top of that, Burke still has to worry about whether those players even want to play for the Leafs (considering that making the playoffs are unlikely), or if they'd rather re-sign with their team for a bit of a discount, but make a real run at the playoffs.

Again, the lockout and new CBA will determine a lot but it seems completely outside the realm of reason to think Burke can roll with Reimer and Scrivens again, and he is most surely on a clock to make it happen, valuation aside.

*and that is just 1 of the teams interested in Luongo!

Oh, and before I forget: the above wasn't opinion, it was FACT

Kass Effect is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:08 PM
  #867
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Dispute Lu's 5 team NTC.

Dispute Vancouver's cap going forward, even under 70M as it stands today.

Those are facts. Dispute them.
LOL...the man said Gillis can negotiate with all 30 teams...very true. He can then present them to Luongo for his approval..OR..he can ask Luongo to present his 5 team list. Maybe you know for a fact that he has done this?

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:09 PM
  #868
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,798
vCash: 5555
I think more time should be spent on finding deals that improve both teams involved on the ice rather than abstract notions of his 'value'. Luongo is a great player that drastically improves most teams he'd be traded to, among them Toronto, Edmonton, Chicago, etc.

GMs will weigh up the benefits of the upgrade in net and use that to determine what kind of assets they can part with to make it still worthwhile for them.

All this talk about Luongo having to be moved is frankly irrelevant; there is more than one team interested, and the most 'desperate' team will have to make a better offer than the next most 'desperate' team.

Where Luongo will waive his NTC is frankly irrelevant, because if he really is determined to be the clear number 1, he'll expand his list to include teams offering something that will make it worthwhile to Gillis.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:10 PM
  #869
Liferleafer
Golf....again....
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soiw4Bh6lig

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:13 PM
  #870
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liferleafer View Post
I'll agree with all...except the bolded. Kessel,Lupul,Phaneuf,Gardiner,JVR,Reilly,Colborne, Kadri,Finn,Percy,Biggs,Liles,Franson,Brown,McCleme nt and even Steckel.

These are all Burke aquisitions and while results are not there (YET) in the standings, i think it's safe to say our future is brighter than it was when he got here.
I agree their future looks better, than when he took over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
It's a irrelevant discussion when people can't even agree on a common ground to make those claims.

I'm hearing an awful lot of "you're being speculative, presenting zeros facts", yet I'm seeing not one poster using any facts to dispute what I'm saying.

At the very least, point #2 and #3 could be disputed with some facts as they are based on factual evidence.
You just haven't responded to anyone who has posted "facts" back to you. You never responded to the posts I responded to you. They completely refute two of your "facts". So please don't tell us to do something if you are just going to ignore it.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:17 PM
  #871
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Just use some REAL sources. I've used cap geek, Vancouver newspaper, mathematical calculation of the cap, and prior NHL trades to validate my opinion.

It's all I ask.
I really don't have too rookie, every single one of your 21 posts have been discredited in this thread. Even got shot down on claiming you didn't state Luongo asked for a trade. It was literally your secon sentence.

So again please keep telling me how you're right and I'm wrong when I've been a religious Canucks fan for the past 16 years of my life. Have literally watched every season Luongo had been a Canuck and have talked and posted on here since like 07.
Please I truly enjoy watching you talk in circles and showing me no real facts, just speculation and opinion.

And yes, when Vancouver has to shed salary, it won't be Luongo on waivers, but depth guys who carry multi million cap hits. Like Ballard 4.2, Raymond 2.275, and Malhotra 2.5. Which by my math is over 10 million. Now if the cap goes to 60 million, Vancouver is quite easily under this number.

Lets not forget the Canucks have legally played over the cap for the past three or more seasons. Having Gillis and Gillman running the ship, money never seems to be a problem.

mstad101 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:21 PM
  #872
HamhuisHip
LeggsOverMyHamhuis
 
HamhuisHip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty111 View Post
Show me some numbers.
I can't show you any numbers just like you can't show me any numbers. A new CBA has not been negotiated yet. No one knows how the "make whole" provision the NHL agreed to will effect the cap or existing contracts. Those details are missing.

HamhuisHip is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:35 PM
  #873
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectProphet View Post
I'll take a stab at it...

Just to dispel some myths going on in this thread(s).

Why Brian Burke HAS TO trade for Roberto Luongo: (this off-season or by latest trade deadline)
Just trying to dispel some myths in this thread(s).

Reasons WHY Brian Burke is NOT under pressure to trade for Roberto Luongo, while we all know he is interested. (just because most conversation is about Leafs acquiring Luongo).

#1. Kessel, Phaneuf, & Lupul will walk for nothing if team keeps missing the postseason. What is important to remember is that all these players will be approached about extensions a year prior to or during the season and if they do not want to resign then all can be moved for significant assets (decide for yourself). Lupul can be traded without restriction. Phaneuf can be traded without restriction, although being team captain his movement is least likely. Kessel can be moved but his limitation is unknown. However, if the new CBA changes RFA status up one more year, Kessel will not be a UFA, rather and RFA and cannot walk. Either way, the likelihood of them walking and leaving the Leafs in a whole is extremely low and close to impossible.

#2. Goalie Market and future UFA’s. If this season is played as a shortened season, then it is possible that there are other goalies on the market to tandem with Reimer. It is hard to know but a package could be made and not set the Leafs back. It may be more of a risk but Brian Burke is known for taking risks. If the lockout goes all season, then the following goalies will potentially be UFA’s for Burke to target: Niklas Backstrom, Tim Thomas, Nikolai Khabibulin, Evgeni Nabokov, Jimmy Howard, Mike Smith, Jose Theodore, Ray Emery, etc.

#3. Burke Needs Luongo to save his job. Speculative at best. Refer to reasons #1 and #2. It's up to Luongo if he wants to come to Toronto, perhaps Florida. Really the decision is not in Brian's hand to make. All he can do is make the best offer he is comfortable with, and Gillis will judge based on ultimately what few offers he gets outlined by Luongo's contractual limitation (5 team trade list.)

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:35 PM
  #874
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamhuisHip View Post
I can't show you any numbers just like you can't show me any numbers. A new CBA has not been negotiated yet. No one knows how the "make whole" provision the NHL agreed to will effect the cap or existing contracts. Those details are missing.
Under current cap.
sedin (6.1) sedin (6.1) burrows (4.5)
booth (4.25) kesler (5.0) xxxxxx
kassian (0.87) xxxxxxx hansen (1.35)
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

bieksa (4.6) hamhuis (4.5)
garrison (4.6) xxxxxxx
ballard (4.2) xxxxxxx

schneider (4)
luongo (5.3)

“with the above players signed it is a total of apx. $57.M committed to the cap with gillis needing to sign 5 forwards and 2 defenseman. assuming that the cap hit is in fact $70 million it would give apx. $12.5 million to sign the remaining 7 players.” Even worse if within a season the cap is graded down to 60M and of course Edler is to be signed.

marty111 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:37 PM
  #875
marty111
Registered User
 
marty111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
Really?
While he has politely given Gillis time and an opportunity to trade him by not forcing his hand and “demanding a trade”, it is a given the future is not long for Luongo and the Canucks.

marty111 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.